A young ministerial candidate was asked whether his sacramental views comported with those of the Westminster Standards. This line of questioning was a novelty to him, and so he asked for a copy. One was quickly produced, but when it became apparent that he was not going to swear on it, but on the contrary, intended to open and read it, the moderator rebuked him sternly. “We have asked if your views are consistent with the Standards, young man, and did not ask you to intrude yourself upon them by considering what they may appear to say.” Abashed by his error, the young man apologized and was quickly forgiven. —Effectual Means of Salvation by Doug Wilson
Infant Baptism Debate: White vs. Strawbridge–Thoughts and Theological Considerations
Editor’s note: I have updated this post to add a few more thoughts on the debate (11-10-07).
I have just heard the debate between Baptist author/apologist James White vs. Presbyterian minister and author Rev. Gregg Strawbridge. Throughout my theological life, I have been influenced in many ways by both men. Gregg’s passionate exposition of the Scriptures has been a source of theological maturity for me. On the other hand, Dr. White has also played a role in my thinking, though in the last few years I have distanced myself in many ways from his theology. Nevertheless, White’s commitment to offer a Biblical apologetic against Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons have been a helpful resource in my apologetic library.
Their debate a few nights ago demonstrates what the Van Tillian tradition of apologetics has so long proved: ideas have consequences. Presuppositions and notions about hermeneutics affect the beginning statement and closing statements of a debate. Interestingly, the debate ended just as it began: the nature of the covenant. White argued persistently that the New Covenant provided only blessings–since it was only for the elect; while Strawbridge’s commitment to covenantal thinking and continuation led him to conclude that the New Covenant is not different from the Old with regards to recipients and structure, but only in regards to efficacy and eschatological intervention through Christ.
Though presuppositions determine all things, I would like to affirm that Strawbridge’s presuppositions is more consistent and faithful to the Biblical text. I do not make that statement simply because of my predisposition towards paedobaptism. I should note that when Sproul debated John McArthur many years ago, he (Sproul) suffered greatly to present a coherent covenantal model, and thus failing to persuade us why Credo-Baptism was erroneous. Nevertheless, however one may think of these types of ideas/exchanges, my conclusion is that White failed to give credence to a fundamental Biblical component of hermeneutics–that is, Biblical typology. In Biblical typology, the author connects ideas, which at first seem invisible. Indeed, this is the duty of the exegete: to bring together God’s revelation into one coherent message.
James White’s main point of contention in every discussion on baptism is that his Presbyterian brothers just did not separate themselves enough from Catholicism in the 16th century, and if Calvin would just have seen a little more light we would all be Credo-Baptists today. White threw out the “T” word to let everyone know that “Tradition” is the worst of all evils and he (White) has no heritage, no tradition influencing his interpretive scheme. White, however, appears unaware of just how much his tradition affects him. For instance, Strawbridge argues rightly that Hebrews establishes that the New Covenant includes believers and unbelievers. As an excellent reference he quotes Hebrews 10:29-30 which reads:
How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”
According to verse 29, “one” and “he” are two different people. Here is where White’s tradition enters the game. White argues, following John Owen (a historical figure; a respected man in White’s tradition) that the “he” in verse 29 refers to Christ and not to an individual. Grammatically however, notice that in verse 30 it is God’s people that is in mind in verse 29, not Christ. The text says that the Lord will judge “his” people. White never mentioned verse 30, which in my estimation confirms Strawbridge’s assertion about verse 29. If White would only abandon his tradition, he would see the simplicity of the text. In the end, the New Covenant maintains the structure of the Old Covenant, that is, a covenant made with believers and unbelievers. The radical change that White argues is non-existent. Once again, let us place the “radical” where radical belongs: in the person of Christ; that is what is radical about the New Covenant.
Strawbridge’s greatest strength is his ability to tie together New Covenantal language with its intended Old Covenant background. Reformed exegetes understand that New Testament writers did not write unaware of their Jewish context. They were not robots, rather their personalities and backgrounds played a deep role in writing what would become our New Testament canon. Their knowledge of Old Covenant language was always influencing their writing. This is the conspicuous reason there are so many Old Testament quotations in the New; there was an unspoken reliance on the Old Covenant canon because the Old Covenant was part of their identity as New Covenant writers.
White, on the other hand, unaware– or better yet,– unwilling to ever engage in this form of argumentation, lost sight of Gregg’s main point: the Children of Christian parents belong to the Lord because this was God’s purpose from the beginning. Of such is the kingdom of heaven; to such belong the kingdom. This is Biblical pattern–not merely a temporary pattern,– but one that would continue to all generations before and after Messiah would come.
Bullinger and covenantal status…
Many in the Southern Presbyterian[1] tradition deny that infants born in covenant homes are to be welcomed in the full life of the church.[2] In fact, some even assume that they are not to receive any covenant privileges until they have reached an age where articulation of one’s faith is possible. This position seems to be a prevalent reaction to the high sacramental theology of various traditions. Unfortunately, this has led to the denial of the God-granted role for covenant children in the church. Infants are heirs of the promise simply because God in His free grace displays His holy affections to the family. As Bullinger writes:
…we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents.
Baptized infants are the proper recipients of grace and are commanded to live in light of his/her covenantal commitment. To live in light of his baptism entails a sacred commitment to piety and holy living. If one is enlightened (baptized) and deny the work of grace, he is then in the same condemnatory status as Judas. Bullinger captures this idea:
They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents.
So then, it is not a trust in the sacrament, but a life lived in light of the sacrament that grants assurance. The Jews thought they were secure because of their birth into the covenant family, but they did not live in light of that status, and thus, suffered the curses. The covenant Lord has entered into covenant with all baptized children, and infants are to grow in that covenant; repenting and believing that God’s grace is sufficient.
[1] For an excellent analysis of Southern and Northern Presbyterianism and how they understood sacramental efficacy, see Lewis Schenck: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.
[2] In the case of Baptist ecclesiology, infants are not even worth y recipients of the covenantal sign of baptism. Hence, there is a legitimate distinction between Southern Presbyterians and Baptists. Though both affirm that children do not receive any saving grace until they make a profession, Paedobaptists apply the sign of the covenant in faith that God will keep His promise.
Cyprian and Trinitarian Baptism..
Hooper makes an important point about Cyprian’s dictum: “nulla salvus extra ecclesiam” — outside the church there is no salvation. Hooper notes that, “The Fourth Lateran Council (ca. 1215) allowed that Cyprian could be wrong and that salvation could exist outside the church, but not outside Christ.” However, “The Fifth Lateran Council (ca. 1512-1517), though, reaffirmed Cyprian’s dictum “nulla salvus extra ecclesiam” –outside the church there is no salvation, excluding the Greek Christians.”1 Cyprian, of course, referred to the Roman Church as the source of salvation. Notice that the Fifth Lateran Council occurred during the birth of the Reformation. Cyprian’s dictum is also found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, though, the WCF did not limit the church to the Roman Church. The Genevan reformer John Calvin, writing his Institutes of the Christian Religion at the very time of the Reformation, wrote therein “beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for.” Hence, the Reformation brought with its dogma a strong view of the salvific nature of the church, though not as exclusive as Rome.2
Cyprian’s dictum, however, can be used in a conciliatory fashion, though his intention was one of exclusivity. Though there are clear sacramental and ecclesial distinctions among the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox tradition, all share a Trinitarian Baptism. This baptism, brings infants and adults to enjoy the benefits of the true church, no matter how wrong it may be in certain areas.
Footnotes
- These quotes are from a series of e-mails from a theology group of which I participate. [↩ back]
- Of course, the Confession certainly had anti-catholic sentiments and I am certain that they would have considered Rome an apostate church; the anti-christ–gladly that was changed in the Revision. [↩ back]
Quote 3, James Jordan On the Sacraments
God’s affirmation of the material world is seen in the fact that He uses physical water to introduce people into His kingdom, and by the fact that we eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood in the Lord’s Supper. Many Christians, however, cannot embrace such physical ideas. Water baptism, is thus reduced to a mere symbol instead of a powerful communication from God, and so are the bread and wine of the Supper. Such a reduction was not the view of the Protestant Reformers, who sought to correct the magical views of the Papal Church, without denying that God really acts through such material means.
Jordan, James. Creation in Six Days, pg. 73.
Leithart on Baptism
I have waited for this for a long time. The Baptized Body by Peter Leithart will prove to be a helpful contribution to sacramental studies in the years to come.
A Review of Leonard Vander Zee’s: Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper
Vander Zee writes out of a deep sense of grief over the evangelical denial/neglect of the Sacraments. This is what truly drives him to write this informative book. In his own words,
“Evangelicals apparently are not very interested in the sacraments, which seems to correspond to their lack of interest in ecclesiology in general.”1
Vander Zee masterfully exegetes what is at the heart of this Protestant abandonment of a robust view of the waters of baptism and the Eucharistic meal. They have made the preaching the center of all worship,2 and the Lord’s Table an unfortunate monthly or quarterly inconvenience.
Vander Zee helpfully re-orients the reader to see in these sacraments more than mere church activities or necessary duties, but rather a life transforming and soul-changing rite that impart grace to the elect. The evangelical (broadly speaking) world needs to be called back to where the Scriptures and the Church have been calling for centuries: to the frequent table feast and the powerful sign and seal of baptism.
The book is divided into 12 chapters. Each chapter focuses on a particular dimension of sacramental theology. The reader who has had little exposure to this topic will find himself familiarized with historical, theological, and existential levels of sacramental thinking after reading this tome. As a result, he will become aware of different theological traditions and furthermore, why the Church from her early days has made these sacraments an essential part of their worship.
Vander Zee approaches these topics from a distinctly Reformed perspective. Nevertheless, he has carefully analyzed other traditions where the Eucharist and Baptism are inextricably tied to their liturgy and life. The author is not only interested in defining a Reformed view of the sacraments (though his expositions of them reveals his presuppositions), but he is eagerly seeking to see the sacraments as means for unity and peace in the Church. Due to this passionate plea for unity, he interacts with the honorable Alexander Schmemann,3 who beautifully taught that we are hungry beings and our souls can only be satisfied in Christ offered for us. “All hunger,” wrote Schmemann, “is a hunger for God. All desire is finally a desire for Him.”4
The author interacts with an eclectic group of sacramental scholars ranging from Catholic to Baptist writers. As a Reformed Scholar, it is only natural that the author emphasizes some Reformed distinctive such as covenantal baptism and a Calvinistic view of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are supplemented by positive interactions with other traditions that seek to elevate the importance of the sacraments in the Church.
Ultimately, sacramental interest is diametrically opposed to the overwhelming individualism of our day. In his discussion of the history of baptism, Vander Zee operates under the presupposition that the Bible, particularly the New Testament, operates under Jewish conceptions of the family.
“In the Jewish way of thinking, one’s relationship to God is not merely individual, but social.” 5
In this same manner, argues Vander Zee, the New Testament continues that covenantal structure begun in the Older Covenant where families were invited to partake of all sacramental privileges in the covenant.The households are always included in God’s promises.
The intention of this book is to bring together the body of Christ, battered by divers controversies, into one baptism. The Church is plagued by separatists who would rather die alone than seek catholicity. In their estimation, individualism is the badge of orthodoxy. In other words, my response to the gospel, my commitment to Christ, and my remembering the Lord at the table is the foundation of true Christianity. In a spiritual level, it is my faith that God is seeking and my attestation of that faith in baptism that He desires. Certainly in such an attempt to please God, they are in actuality denying the work of grace in God’s gifts to the Church. The stake is high: if individualism wins the day, all that the Reformers considered sacred will vanish and give way to autonomous man operating their autonomous wills, preaching their autonomous message to an autonomous congregation who finds solace not in God’s means to nurture and sanctify, but their own human-devised methodologies.
In light of all this, there is one element of this book that is astonishingly faulty. On page 100, under footnote 29, Vander Zee seems to give in to the symbolism of baptistic theology in baptism. He writes,
“In the practice of baptism today, however, I think its sacramental nature is best highlighted by using as much water as possible according to the circumstances. There is an exciting return to immersion among non-Baptist churches, even for the baptism of infant and young children. I believe that immersion, where possible, is the best means to express the meaning of baptism.”
This statement is utterly problematic. Even if the symbolism of baptism by immersion seemed to reflect what happens to us in baptism, the question is: does the Scripture teach immersion? It is not enough to seek catholicity at the expense of abandoning certain Biblical and Reformational principles in order to unite.6 It has been sprinkling and pouring that has united the “One, holy, catholic and apostolic church,” not immersion. Furthermore, the Biblical imagery of immersion bears no similarity to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Christ was not buried under the earth, but above the earth in a tomb. Suffice to say, Vander Zee builds a crescendo leading to a beautiful portrait of true baptism, however, he fails to seal that picture with the imagery the Bible conveys.
As a final note, this book walks the reader through a litany of events; from the corporate unity that was broken so severely in the Church of Corinth,7 to the historical battles fought over sacramental definitions in the Reformation, to the modern divisive waters of baptism that were truly intended to unite. We are reminded, however, that amidst these tumultuous historical events, our God has not left us without the proper means of nourishment. He brings us to the waters of baptism and to the table of His dear Son to be fed and assured that we are His to His everlasting praise. These are simple, physical means: water, bread and wine used by God to create a new humanity. In the words of Vander Zee, ” When the worshiping community shares the cup of wine, it affirms what it already is and will become in God’s kingdom, a community of joy and gladness, the feasting people of God.”8
Word format – christbaptismandthelord_ssupper.doc
- Vander Zee, Leonard J. Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship, pg. 10. [↩ back]
- Preaching must be maintained as central in Orthodox Reformed worship, but it cannot be put against the Sacraments, for they work together as means of grace to convert the soul. [↩ back]
- See pages 18, 202, 212, 219, 224, 239. [↩ back]
- Quoted in Vander Zee, pg. 239. Taken from Schmemann’s For the Life of the World, p.15. [↩ back]
- Vander Zee, pg. 99. [↩ back]
- Immersion is also practiced by the Orthodox Church. Though the Orthodox Church has been greatly used by God, they are still practicing erroneous baptism by denying the rich Old Testament symbolism of pouring and sprinkling. [↩ back]
- I Corinthians 11. [↩ back]
- Vander Zee, pg. 240. [↩ back]
This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison of Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part VI CONCLUSION
Calvin and Luther had many things in common. Both believed firmly that the Eucharist was a means of grace. 1 The elements nourished the believer and prepared them for their labors in the Lord. Calvin says that the Eucharist is needful because of our “dullness.” Similarly, Luther opines by stating that the sacrament, like the Word of God Almighty, has been given and ordained so that our weak consciences may be encouraged to faith and love. This common bond ought to have unified these two and their respective followers.
Though there were substantial differences, Luther and Calvin understood that the words of Christ had to be taken seriously. Zwingli’s memorial view did not do justice to the words of Christ and the Roman Catholic position relied too much on Aristotelian categories. Luther and Calvin’s level of sacramental and Biblical seriousness ought to pervade the Church of Christ today. It is a futile attempt for the church to “succeed” 2 in every area, but fail to see the essence of the apostolic church. 3 Calvin listed the proper administration of the sacraments, along with the preaching of the Word and Church discipline as the three marks of the church. The church is an unhealthy body if it does not keep and administer that mark faithfully, for in the Lord’s Supper the children of the King sit at His royal table to experience the glories of that sovereign union the King has made with His people. To deny such a glorious banquet would be to deny His children the true assurance that they belong to the King. Children 4 come because they are needy; they come because they hear the great Shepherd’s call. Indeed, the Lord’s Table is for those who labor and are heavy laden, and Christ the Lord will give them rest.
- See Stephen Nichols’ discussion on page 124 in Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought. [↩ back]
- The standards of “success” today are in total disagreement with God’s standards of “faithfulness,” which demands a holy reverence to His means of grace for the church. [↩ back]
- Acts 2:42 –And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [↩ back]
- My reference to “children” refers to the church. “Children” is here used as in John’s address to the “dear children” in I John 2. Nevertheless, I believe that “covenant children” should be admitted to the table of the Lord. This topic is not the intent of this paper, though a logical consequence of it. [↩ back]
This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison Between Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part V
For Luther, Jesus’ words were simple and clear. And for those who would oppose its literal rendering he had strict condemnation. According to Luther’s crucial work on the words of Jesus called: “That these words of Christ, ‘This is my Body,’ Etc., stand firm against the fanatics,” 1 he argues vociferously against his opponents whom he calls “fanatics.” He writes: “Now you demand Scripture from us, dear fanatics? Here it is: ‘Take, eat, this is my body.’ Torment yourselves for now with this text; later you shall have more.” 2
Turning back to the matter of the ubiquity of Christ, what is Luther’s reasoning behind it? General reference is made to the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of God. This would entail that he is in one place. But Luther contests this idea when he says that “the right hand of God is not a specific place in which a body must or may be, such as on a golden throne, but is the almighty power of God, which at one and the same time can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” 3 Luther goes on to give a more thorough defense of his position. Though there are legitimate responses to Luther, it must be acknowledged that he dedicated a substantial amount of his writings to answering them. 4 Further, like Calvin, Luther, too, saw a strong connection between Word and Sacrament. Hence, Christ was not alone in the Sacrament, but was accompanied by His word. Listen to Luther’s insightful words: “ For there stands God’s words, ‘This is my body,’ which grasp, comprehend, and give us physically the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ must be useful through the Word. Indeed, even if it were true that Christ’s flesh were merely a piece of beef, and yet God’s Word were there bidding us to eat of it, it would nevertheless be useful on account of the Word.” 5 The Word is therefore in Luther’s view inseparable from the body.
As it has been stressed in so many ways, Martin Luther drew extensively from the words of institution given by our Lord in the Last Supper. If no other passage solved the matter appropriately, then according to Luther one need only turn to “This is my body.” There, he believed, was incontrovertible evidence that Christ’s body was truly present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, though Calvin was more sympathetic to Luther than Zwingli, he saw in Luther’s interpretation a fundamental error, namely a confusion of the natures of Christ. If Christ’s body was present in the Eucharist He could no longer be seated at the right hand of the Father as the exalted Lord. For Calvin, believers partook of the body of Christ by faith and in so doing they were elevated to the heavens. 6 Calvin believed that the saints enjoyed him in heaven whereas Luther saw it necessary that Christ’s words in the gospel meant that his physical body descended to the Eucharist. 7 Luther believed in a mystical union between the recipient and Christ himself, but Luther’s emphasis is that the believer can be sacramentally united to the body of Christ himself in the Eucharist.
- These long titles were common in the 16th century Reformation. One need only look through the myriad of titles Calvin had for his Institutes. I would favor a return to long titles as opposed to cliché titles given to modern books. With long titles you can give an exact demonstration of your intention throughout the book, whereas titles like “1984” by Orwell say nothing about the content of the book. [↩ back]
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works Volume 37 Word and Sacrament, Ed. Robert H. Fischer. Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961, pg. 50. [↩ back]
- can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” [↩ back]
- The majority of Luther’s works are dedicated to responding to his opponents. The majority of his critiques are against the Roman Catholic apologists and Zwinglians. [↩ back]
- Ibid., pg. 134. [↩ back]
- Reference to Ephesians 2:6. [↩ back]
- Christ is in, with, and under the elements. This has traditionally been called: “Consubstantiation.” Though as Keith Mathison has pointed out, Lutherans prefer the language of “Sacramental Union.” [↩ back]
Christ, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
I have spent most of the morning and afternoon reading through Leonard Vander Zee’s very well written piece on the sacraments. It is a remarkable combination of good scholarship and pastoral insight.